A response to Gupta et al. (2019) regarding the MOT3 wheat blast diagnostic assay

Jarred Yasuhara-Bell, Michael L. Pieck, Amy Ruck, Mark L. Farman, Gary L. Peterson, James P. Stack, Barbara Valent, Kerry F. Pedley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

This is a response to a recent Letter to the Editor of Phytopathology, in which Gupta et al. (2019) caution against the indiscriminate use of the MoT3 diagnostic assay that distinguishes isolates of Magnaporthe oryzae in the Triticum lineage from those that do not cause aggressive wheat blast. We confirm that the assay does reliably distinguish between wheat and rice isolates from Bangladesh and worldwide, as described in the original paper by Pieck et al. (2017). We have been unable to reproduce the equally intense amplification of WB12 and WB12-like sequences reported in Figure 1 of the Letter. Other data presented by Gupta et al. (2019) support the specificity of the MoT3 assay. Therefore, cautions beyond those always associated with accurate reproduction of diagnostic assays are unwarranted.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)509-511
Number of pages3
JournalPhytopathology
Volume109
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2019

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American Phytopathological Society. All rights reserved.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agronomy and Crop Science
  • Plant Science

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A response to Gupta et al. (2019) regarding the MOT3 wheat blast diagnostic assay'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this